Talk:Royal National Institute of Blind People

[Untitled]

Hello.

I made some significant changes to the RNIB's entry the other day that were then changed back. I'm not sure why!

I work as the senior web editor for RNIB, and thought it would be useful to improve RNIB's stub entry. I've used our current website, annual review and other information (all of it in the public domain) to present an up to date, accurate and useful entry for the organisation.

I took out reference to Galloway Society for the Blind, as it seemed unfair to promote one local society over another. If that's bothered someone, please let me know and we can discuss it.

If you'd like to discuss any other aspects of the content please do.

I hope whoever changed the new content back will understand that, as someone who works for RNIB, I want the charity to be presented as completely and professionally as possible.

Many thanks,

Verity

Shiny1 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The policies that that could be infringed by a large article authored by the subject are WP:NOT and WP:V, especially that “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. The specific issue of self-published material is dealt with under WP:COI, although this does not entirely rule out doing so. There is also the issue of WP:NPOV.

There have been various articles created from time to time that are strongly in praise of (or against) their subjects, sometimes to the point of adopting the first person, and have to be taken down or changed significantly. However, this page is somewhat different in that a) there is no case against the RNIB to discuss b) the page at the moment is informative rather than “in praise of” and c) the page that was replaced didn’t have third-party sources besides other blindness organisations. There is also the fact that primary sources (the organisation’s own statements) are likely to be more accurate than outside ones with regard to policies etc. So it may be possible to allow most of what has been added subject to outside sources being added later, but with regard to the quantity of information about programmes, I would want to compare what has been done for other voluntary organisations. Finally, the other society was Galloway’s (after someone with that name) not Galloway. Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,I've added more third party references to support the text. I think some references are appropriate to linked to RNIB, e.g. annual report, detail about RNIB's aims/mission/areas of work etc. Can anyone help out with other suggestions of how the article could be improved? Any references I've missed? Thanks. Kat384 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Name “Royal National Institute of Blind People”: 2002 or 2007 ?

The section “History” says : “In 2002, RNIB membership was introduced and the organisation's name changed to Royal National Institute of the Blind. In June 2007 the organisation changed its name again, to Royal National Institute of Blind People.”

The source (History of RNIB) doesn’t say the same thing : “Our name was officially changed to the Royal National Institute for the Blind in 1953, having received the Royal Charter in 1949. In 2002 our name changed to the Royal National Institute of Blind People rather than 'for' blind people when we became a Membership organisation.”

Where is the truth?

--Chrismagnus (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsuitable content

User:PlatinumSpheres keeps adding content to this article that's unsuitable for an encyclopedia article meant to be useful and informative to the general public.

• Articles about organizations don't normally go into their internal committee structure; Wikipedia readers have no use for trivia about an organization has a "people committee" or a "nominating committee", and even less so for the composition of those committees. This is the sort of information that belongs on the organization's own web presences. This article is not one of those: see WP:NOTWEBHOST. I've removed the material but the other editor has restored it.
• The same editor has added, and then re-added after I removed it, a bunch of information about visual health in the UK that is irrelevant to this article. It's as though the editor is using the article to speak on behalf of RNIB, which isn't allowed. Again, this article is not a web property of RNIB, and Wikipedia articles need to stay on-topic: see WP:COATRACK.

This material should be removed. The article is already tagged as promotional. It shouldn't devolve further into a PR vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom

Please see the abovementioned article. It's subject seems to have become defunct and it's website refers readers to https://www.rnib.org.uk/newsagent

It appears that TNAUK was taken over by RNIB or else RNIB now offers the services formerly offered by TNAUK, without an actual takeover. Editors who are more familiar with the subject should deal with this by merging the TNAUK page into this one or otherwise updating both pages to explain what actually happened. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Update needed

In addition to this article's WP:NOT brochure-esque tone there's an inquiry by the Charity Commission for England and Wales into the organisation's failings in its duty of care over its benefactors some of whom were minors. One of its centres, the RNIB Pears Centre for Specialist Learning was closed down due to allegations of child abuse. The Charity Commission for England and Wales's report is available here. There is also an article in the British Medical Journal (paywalled) and at least two articles in The Guardian

• [1]
• [2]--𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested removal of the Campaigns section

Reason being the entire section (like a lot of this page) is sourced entirely to this organisation's website and most of the citations link to dead pages and pulling them out of the archives would be counter productive.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced information about the sexual abuse of blind autistic children in RNIB's care

I am noting here that another editor has attempted to remove relioably sourced information about allegations of a sexually abusive practice inflicted upon blind, autistic children in RNIB's care. The Guardian reported these allegations in 2018 and further allegations in 2020 and I am leaving the link here for posterity should anyone try to remove the information again at a later date. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/05/rnib-and-subsidiary-under-investigation-over-abuse-allegation

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/25/children-at-rnib-schools-and-homes-put-at-risk-charity-regulator-finds

Furthermore, this organisation was investigated by the Charities Commission over gross mismanagement and some deeply disturbing child-abuse that occured at it's facilities. Additionally, per the charity commission report, The Guardian, the BBC and several local newspapers blind autistic children were also subject to incidents of Physical restraint that went undocumented and were even issued the wrong medication on some occasions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-inquiry-the-royal-national-institute-of-blind-people-and-rnib-charity/charity-inquiry-the-royal-national-institute-of-blind-people-226227-and-rnib-charity-1156629#

The very purpose of this encyclopaedia is to shine a light into the darkest recesses of humanity and ensure that that light stays on. It is imperitive that child-abuse of the worst kind by an institution charged with protecting some of the most vulnerable members of society remains on this public record. Wikipedia is not here to serve the interests of it's subjects, it's here to serve the public interest and that means giving a voice to the voiceless. This incidents of child-abuse must be preserved here so that the public remain aware to these appauling incidents and can decide whether or not this charity is worth of their donations or indeed its royal patronage.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 20:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"The very purpose of this encylopaedia is to shine a light into the darkest recesses of humanity". Really? I came to the Wikipedia entry on RNIB expecting to find out what the organisation does, what services it offers, who runs it, and its more than 150 years' history. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla's new version posted this evening doesn't at all meet those criteria. The lede doesn't explain anything about the organisation other than the fact that is a charity and Charles III is its patron. Instead, it focuses in detail on an investigation by the Charity Commission, doesn't explain the outcome of that investigation and gives excessive coverage to allegations of "sexually abusive practices". The article is not at all balanced or comprehensive in its coverage and I therefore propose to revert to the version I posted earlier today. Headhitter (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to defend the indefensible? I suppose next we should posthumously nominate Jimmy Savile for a nobel because he sent one or two kids to Euro Disney and did do some charity work in between his prolific paedophilia?

Here are the facts;

1. Sexual abuse of children with sightloss and learning disabilities occured on the RNIB's watch and this was covered in sigificant depth in the local and national news.

2. The Charities Commission investigated the RNIB and uncovered incidents of undocumented physical restraint, medical errors that included administering the wrong medication to a child with epilepsy. There were also reports of a child who sustained serious damage to their feet after they were forced to wear shoes that were too small for them - that is torture. The press may not have reported the show incident as torture but that doesn't mitigate the sheer evil of what happened at the RNIB's facilities.

3. The depth and weight of the press coverage given to the RNIB's abuse of children in its care far outweighs the coverage of their recent campaigns that your recent edits highlighted. Therefore, it is appropriate to give WP:DUE to the child abuse because

A. It's in the public interest

and

B. The amount of press given to the charity's failings far outweighs any of the press given to any of its campaigns.

Given the severity, the public outcry and the amount of press coverage given to the RNIB's abuse of vulnerable children there should be a lenghty controversies section summarising the extent of the abuse and the controversies must be mentioned in the article's lead.

Also, while you're here would you mind explaining why you removed this article from the Guardian that documents the sexual abuse allegations and the text it was supporting without discussing it on this talk page first?𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 22:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The article in its current state includes a lot of duplication between the sections headed "Sexually abusive practices" and "Charity commission inquiry into child abuse at RNIB's facilities". On looking closely it appears that the CC inquiry described in both sections was the same one. This needs to be rationalised. It's not clear on reading whether the CC found problems at any other sites beyond the two (school and home) at Pears. I see that RNIB Pears Centre for Specialist Learning, which didn't mention the CC report (and clearly should have done) was expanded but then turned into a redirect: this lost substantial information on its history. PamD 12:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirection of RNIB Pears Centre for Specialist Learning and tidied it up a bit. PamD 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've now merged and rationalised the two sections. Headhitter (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted User:GDX420's three most recent edits because: * Ian Bruce isn't a key person - he's a vice-president not the president * The text on Sexual abuse allegations is in the wrong place – it should be in the Charity Commission Inquiry section – and much of this additional text repeats what is already in that section. Headhitter (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, claim #1 of "Here are the facts", that sexual abuse occurred, is not supported by those sources nor so far as I can find by any others that the editor has placed in the article. NebY (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Posterity

I also want to preserve for prosterity that the BBC reported that an epileptic child in this organisation's care suffered an increase in seisures after being repeatedly given the wrong medication and another vulnerable child had their feet damaged after being force to wear shoes that were too small for them. I am copying and pasting the text with relevant links below just in case the is another attempt at managing the reputation of what is possibly one of the most disreputable charities in modern history.

When the CC published its report the RNIB issued an apology which claimed that the findings, 'represent(s) a low point in our 152-year history'. The findings included a child whose feet were injured because they wore shoes that were too small for three months. Moreover, the inquiry found a 'disproportionately high number of basic medication errors' with one epileptic child suffering an increase in seizures.

A note on Ian Bruce's book

I believe this article has GA potential but to achieve this I think we need to ensure that we aren't basing the article's content on primary sources when secondary and tertiary sources are available. There is an Ebook that documents RNIB's history from 1970-2010. It is called Vision Changing Charities RNIB History in Socio-Political Context, 1970-2010. According, to its WorldCat page it can be found in college and university libraries, although it doesn't appear to be available in any public libraries. However, there is a clear connection between the book's author the charity marketing guru Ian Bruce (charity marketing) who per WP's entry on him, "he is vice-president of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)". Therefore, if this book is to be used, can editors please treat it as a primary source for verifying self-evident statements where no other sources exist. Given that ostensibly Bruce's book can only be accessed via academic institutions I think its best that we consider sources that are widely available to the general public before we consider this book. Also, given that GA status is achievable with improved sourcing and MOS compliance I think its best that we focus on expanding and improving the article using secondary and teritary sources before implementing sources written by the organisation's employees or those with a close connection to the organisation. I think we can all agree that we want to aim for a legitimate encyclopaedia entry and not a brochure page akin to the organisation's website.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 07:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bruce's book is available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vision-Changing-Charities-Socio-Political-1970-2010/dp/0718896408 and new and second-hand copies are widely available to the general public. Rather than expanding and improving the article you've deleted all of my edits - the current version has only two lines on "Programme and services", 14 lines on "Sexually abusive practices" and 19 lines on "Charity Commission enquiry into child abuse at RNIB's facilities". It's unbalanced and doesn't explain to the reader what the organisation actually does. In its present form, the article would fall at the first hurdle in seeking WP:GA status. Please explain how it "covers the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail" (that's why I shortened the text relating to the Charity Commission investigation) and "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias". Headhitter (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A polite reminder about potential copyright violations and overlinking to the organisation's website

Just for housekeeping purposes I would like to quickly address this recent edit through the lense of copyright and external linking.

The edit that I've linked above reads,

"The Royal National Institute of Blind People) is a registered charity in the United Kingdom that offers practical and emotional support to blind and partially sighted people, their families and carers. It raises awareness of the experiences of blind and partially sighted people and campaigns for change to make UK society more accessible for people with sight loss"

and the organisation's about us page reads,

"RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, is the UK's leading sight loss charity. We offer practical and emotional support to blind and partially sighted people, their families and carers. We raise awareness of the experiences of blind and partially sighted people and campaign for change to make our society more accessible for all. We want to change our world so there are no barriers to people with sight loss."

WP:CV says;

"Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such situations should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

Therefore, I would ask all concerned parties to be vigilent of copyrighted material from the organisation's website creeping into the article. Hopefully this is the last time that I have to bring this up.

Next can we also keep an eye on the amount of links directed to the organisation's website please?

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says, "Normally, only one official link is included." and WP:ELOFFICIAL says, "The official website should be included in infoboxes such as

Royal National Institute of Blind People

,[2] and by convention are listed first in the ==External links== section. Use of the template is optional."

Therefore, the link in the infobox and in the external links at the foot of the page are sufficient. We don't need to over link to the organisation's website or any other websites or sources closely associated with the website unless we are invoking MOS:QUOTE. There are more than enough secondary and tertiariary sources covering this topic and I would like it if we could focus on elevating this article to GA status by weening it off the primary sources and using secondary and tertiary sourced to produce a balanced article. Given the amount of coverage this subject has received in reliable sources I think we can do better than a start-class article.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do I need to tag this page for CopyVio and sources closely associated with the subject?

There seems to be some content creeping into this page that is closely paraphrased from the organisation's website and/or the websites of third parties that the organisation works with. There are also quite a few sources closely associated with the subject including a book written by the organisation's vice precident being used where secondary and tertiary sources could be used. I don't want to have to place a maintenance tag at the top of this page but I am running out of options.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 12:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

CC inquiry findings

THe Charity Commission inquiry section cites the inquiry report (a primary source) and news reports of its contents in the Guardian, Third Sector, Civil Society and the Times, interspersed with reports of later events. In consequence we seem to have some repetition, as report findings reported in different ways are represented as "moreover" separate findings. I've removed one[3] that also made claims that weren't in the inquiry report or the cited news report, but there's more. Here's what we currently say the report said, after removing the interspersed material.

The inquiry found significant management, oversight, and staffing shortcomings had led to repeated incidents where young people in the charity's care were put at risk or harmed.^{Guardian (2020)}

that RNIB's corporate stewardship of services for children with complex needs fell far short of expectations^{Guardian 2020}

that the charity's board had been focused on narrow regulatory compliance and dismissive of criticism from the regulatory organisations it was accountable to – the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted.^{Third Sector, Civil Society}

that the RNIB had failed to protect its beneficiaries from coming to harm.^{Third Sector, Civil Society ?}

Moreover, serious safeguarding breaches had occurred within the charity due to systemic weaknesses and the absence of a centralised data-management system for its care settings.^{Third Sector, Civil Society}

the Charity Commission heard from multiple parties involved with the charity who attributed its failings to dysfunctional leadership and governance over many years.^{Civil Society}

that the RNIB Pears Centre for Specialist Learning, a residential school near Coventry, failed to ensure its staff had adequate training, made multiple administration errors, neglected to document incidents of physical restraint, lacked effective safeguarding procedures, and administered the wrong medication on numerous occasions.^{Guardian (2020)}

also found inadequate responses to complaints about unexplained injuries and improper management of medical care, possibly due to a reliance on unqualified and temporary staff.^{citation needed}

Two of the charity's institutional creditors considered it to have defaulted on its credit agreement terms because of the Pears Centre's regulatory difficulties and Ofted's proposed cancellation of the establishment's registration.^{Charity Commission inquiry}

its creditors declared that the organisation had to pay £21 million immediately.^{Charity Commission inquiry}

concluded that the charity placed its beneficiaries at undue risk of harm and in some occasions actual harm.^Times

I see a triplication of content about risk of harm and actual harm, and the "significant management, oversight, and staffing shortcomings" appears to be a summary of the detail which others reported; other editors may notice other duplications. NebY (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good analysis, NebY: thank you for taking the time to do that. I agree that there is currently repetition in this section of the article but I also feel that the section is far too long and that the article, as currently written, gives WP:UNDUE to the Charity Commission investigation. Headhitter (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Coming here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki harassment from article's subject, I could see the effect but not the mechanics of the section; hence the above. Replacing the multiple versions with a unified summary should help with the length and the undue weight, and I'll look at doing that later, though the section might still need more work. I'm happy to leave it to you and others to consider whether the article's other content fairly reflects the activities and history of the organisation.

One thing that's struck me is that a Guardian report in 2018 mentioned allegations of “sexually abusive practice” and that's been a theme in edit summaries here (e.g.[4],[5],[6]), but the 2020 Charity Commission report doesn't seem to have mentioned sexual abuse and I've found no press reports of such allegations then or since. Have you seen any RS mentions of the allegations persisting, or being dropped, denied, debunked or whatever? NebY (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, NebY. No, I haven't seen such reports. Notably, Holly Watt's 2018 piece in The Guardian leads with allegations of "sexually abusive practice" at RNIB, but Patrick Butler's Guardian article written two years later, and after the Charity Commission had published its findings, makes no mention of them. Headhitter (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)